Closed kevinlewi closed 1 year ago
Yeah that might be nicer. I see that VOPRF does "OPRFv1-" as the context string -- perhaps we can just follow suit?
Yeah that might be nicer. I see that VOPRF does "OPRFv1-" as the context string -- perhaps we can just follow suit?
Yep, that's my suggestion.
Updated the string from "RFCXXXX" to "OPAQUEv1-". Also re-ran test vector generation
Based on Scott Fluhrer's mailing list comments:
"At one point, the draft uses “RFCXXXX” as a protocol identifier in the preamble; is that expected to be replaced by the assigned RFC number? If so, I would suggest you add instructions to the RFC editors to that effect."